Author Topic: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon 1 Launch 5 (RazakSat) - July 13/14 (Read 361280 times)

cixelsyD · « **Reply #680 on:** 07/14/2009 04:07 am »

Intuitively I would say it looks, and is wobbly just because it's a small rocket. Smaller oscillations would have greater effect on it with it's one engine. I'm no aerospace engineer though, perhaps someone knows a better explanation.

Jorge · « **Reply #681 on:** 07/14/2009 04:12 am »

Quote from: scotty125 on 07/14/2009 04:06 am

Pretty cool video...I'm of the opinion NASA needs to hang a few more cameras on their vehicles, including shuttle.

Seven cameras (not even counting onboard) isn't enough for you?

Antares · « **Reply #682 on:** 07/14/2009 04:14 am »

One theory is asymmetric coking on an RP engine at low pressure and low MR.

Edit: anyone recall how much longer than expected the first burn was on flight 4?

jabe · « **Reply #683 on:** 07/14/2009 04:16 am »

mmm..Anyone know how/when we will know that the circular burn and S/C separation worked? I'm thinking it should be happening soon if I understood what they said during the web cast.
jb

ugordan · « **Reply #684 on:** 07/14/2009 04:16 am »

Antares, any inside info on the initial orbital parameters?

They left that one hanging in the air, as far as we know it could have underperformed and yet there's cheering here. I dunno, I'd like to put that concern to bed. And myself...

corrodedNut · « **Reply #685 on:** 07/14/2009 04:18 am »

I think they changed the timing of the "stiffening band" seperation on this flight. Seems like last flight it was before fairing sep and now its after. Anybody else notice this?

Antares · « **Reply #686 on:** 07/14/2009 04:18 am »

My guess: this orbit is nominal. It should shut down on guidance. The question would be if there's enough propellant left onboard to make the mission orbit, if the first burn was long as Ross and Scotty125 observe.

Antares · « **Reply #687 on:** 07/14/2009 04:19 am »

Quote from: corrodedNut on 07/14/2009 04:18 am

I think they changed the timing of the "stiffening band" seperation on this flight. Seems like before it was before fairing sep and now its after. Anybody else notice this?

It just melts off like the RL10B-2

edkyle99 · « **Reply #688 on:** 07/14/2009 04:20 am »

Quote from: cixelsyD on 07/14/2009 04:07 am

Intuitively I would say it looks, and is wobbly just because it's a small rocket. Smaller oscillations would have greater effect on it with it's one engine. I'm no aerospace engineer though, perhaps someone knows a better explanation.

The on-board camera must be using an extremely wide angle lens. This would magnify oscillation effects I think.

- Ed Kyle

scotty125 · « **Reply #689 on:** 07/14/2009 04:22 am »

True, but only a couple are live feeds...the SRB cameras produce some interesting footage, but the lenses are subject to contamination from the plumes as soon as they start to tumble, or at least the early ones were.

There's no better PAO event than a live launch with great footage, save maybe a lunar EVA...

R.Simko · « **Reply #690 on:** 07/14/2009 04:22 am »

It sounded to me like the engine restart would be at about 12:30 AM Eastern Standard Time.

edkyle99 · « **Reply #691 on:** 07/14/2009 04:23 am »

Quote from: Antares on 07/14/2009 04:18 am

My guess: this orbit is nominal. It should shut down on guidance. The question would be if there's enough propellant left onboard to make the mission orbit, if the first burn was long as Ross and Scotty125 observe.

The Flight 4 SECO1 was expected to be 9 m 39 sec. This one was at 9 m 40 sec or so.

- Ed Kyle

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #692 on:** 07/14/2009 04:23 am »

Wasn't it only a 30 minute coast?

Quote from: R.Simko on 07/14/2009 04:22 am

It sounded to me like the engine restart would be at about 12:30 AM Eastern Standard Time.

Ah right, let's see how fast they turn around news on s/c sep.

jongoff · « **Reply #693 on:** 07/14/2009 04:24 am »

Quote from: Chris Bergin on 07/14/2009 04:23 am

Wasn't it only a 30 minute coast?

Yeah, I thought they said 28min.

~Jon

ugordan · « **Reply #694 on:** 07/14/2009 04:24 am »

I heard 39 min? Oh well.

jongoff · « **Reply #695 on:** 07/14/2009 04:26 am »

Quote from: ugordan on 07/14/2009 04:24 am

I heard 39 min? Oh well.

If so, that would place it about now. I wonder if they're going to do any updates on their webcast page. They have those notes down below the actual webcast screen...

~Jon

edkyle99 · « **Reply #696 on:** 07/14/2009 04:27 am »

Quote from: ugordan on 07/14/2009 04:24 am

I heard 39 min? Oh well.

I noted a 38 minute coast according to the webcast announcer.

- Ed Kyle

Chandonn · « **Reply #697 on:** 07/14/2009 04:29 am »

Not seeing any vids of the launch online yet.. oh, where's John44???

Andrewwski · « **Reply #698 on:** 07/14/2009 04:31 am »

This has been one he** of a stream to record. There's a few of us that have been working on it and have some sort of recording - now it's figuring out how to make that into a playable file.

Nascent Ascent · « **Reply #699 on:** 07/14/2009 04:31 am »

What is the purpose of the stiffening band and why is it jettisoned?